David Roundy wrote:
Manuel M T Chakravarty wrote:
Maybe we should just invest that effort into helping David improve
his
code instead.
This idea occurred to me too, and there's probably a lot we could
do to
improve darcs with a few days of Ian's and my time. Something to
think
about, definitely.
Cheers,
Simon
That would most definitely be appreciated! But not just yet: if
you're only
going to devote a few days' time (which makes sense: none of us want
ghc
neglected!), I'd rather pick the low-hanging fruit first, and then
let you
handle the tougher cases.
At least to start with, the most helpful thing you could do with
darcs is
just find test cases where the performance lags behind that of older
darcs.
Or also cases where it has always been unacceptable, but such
problems are
less likely to be quickly fixable. This is all to say, in a week or
two,
when you've got a shiny new version of darcs to play with...
It seems to be that of the problems with the current version of darcs
that Simon described in this initial email, performance is really the
one major problem that is not addressed by David's new work. At the
same time, GHC developers seem to be the sort of people who know a lot
about how to write fast Haskell programs. So, I am thinking
performance optimisations might quite possibly be the area where we
could help David out most effectively - maybe Don could have a look at
that, too. Does that make sense?
Manuel
_______________________________________________
Cvs-ghc mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
